Britain and Africa are heading for a war of words after the
British government criticised leaders of the continent over Zimbabwe. Jack
Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, says there is a lack of commitment by
all of Africa's leaders to recognise the scale of horror unfolding in
Zimbabwe.

Straw was referring to Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe's
clean-up campaign that, according to the United Nations, has left 200 000
people homeless. Straw has urged African leaders to confront Mugabe about
his government's human rights violations.

Illegal
structuresThousands of self-employed people have seen their informal shops
demolished and goods confiscated in the six-week campaign. President Robert
Mugabe's government says illegal structures in cities are a haven for
illegal trade in foreign currency and scarce food items and other banned
activities.

The campaign has sparked angry criticism from Zimbabwe's main
opposition party, as well as human rights and religious groups, who say it
is unfairly targeting the urban poor.

The United Nations said it
planned to send a special envoy to Zimbabwe to investigate the
crackdown.

Local authorities in Harare have also warned they will enforce
an existing ban on growing crops like the staple maize in open areas
including along stream-banks, which they say have caused environmental
degradation in urban centres.

QUESTION: Yes. The Zimbabwe Government appears to have taken
another step in its urban clearance program that you've criticized before.
This time they seem to have banned the practice of urban agriculture. I
wondered if you had any --

MR. ERELI: I hadn't seen that. I'll have
to see what we -- if we have anything new to say on that particular
development. Obviously, the Government of Zimbabwe has a fairly -- has a
deplorable record of actions taken against the interests of and welfare of
its citizens. And we spoke to them, the most recent one of those a few days
ago, in talking about the destruction of people's homes and businesses for
unacceptable reasons. We called on the Government of Zimbabwe to stop it.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen -- I don't think we've seen them change their
pattern of abuse.

QUESTION: Are you undertaking any particular diplomatic
initiatives here? I just notice that The Washington Post editorialized this
morning that this campaign sort of bears resemblance to some of things that
Pol Pot did in Cambodia. And there may be estimates of several hundred
thousand people left homeless.

MR. ERELI: Well, obviously, we've got
-- we've taken bilateral measures in terms of sanctions and other
restrictions, government to government. We work diplomatically to call
attention to these outrages, to make -- to exert efforts to influence and
cause the Government of Zimbabwe to change its policies, both
internationally through the Commonwealth and through other organizations,
and regionally through the South African group, SADC, and others.

It
is a tough task when you've got a leadership that is so intent on continuing
abusive policies. But it is an effort that, I think, we continue to exert
and will not relent on.

QUESTION: Okay. That same commentary that I
mentioned faulted the South African Government. They have a policy of quiet
diplomacy towards Zimbabwe, which apparently isn't working. Have you been in
contact with South Africa?

MR. ERELI: It's a subject that we are
regularly engaged with the Government of South Africa on. I'll leave it to
speak to its policies and explain what's behind them. But obviously, we are
trying to encourage others to take actions, meaningful actions, that move
Zimbabwe and the leadership of Zimbabwe in the right direction, but also say
that we are very active in supporting fundamental freedoms in Zimbabwe and
helping the people of Zimbabwe exercise their democratic rights in seeking
to redress wrongs that they perceive in their own society.

Africa is a problem. Britain has been unsure
of what do about Africa since the end of its empire. It just knows that Africa
is a problem. A problem of Britain's own making, at least in part. As Tony Blair
and Gordon Brown lead the effort to bring more aid to Africa, it is worth
reflecting on Britain's past encounters with Africa: the slave trade, cotton,
sugar and rubber trades all fuelling the industrial revolution, and colonialism.
The "civilising mission" came with the best of intentions, but often had
negative impacts. Our current track-record is little different.

Britain's relations with independent Africa lack
the "feel-good" aspect of the Americans with their red, white and blue-stamped
food aid. Nor have we maintained personalised, semi-colonial ties like the
French. Lacking the "solidarity" ethos of the Nordic states or Canada's pride in
its peacekeepers, Britain's development community doesn't do much flag-waving.
This is not such a bad thing. We escape the worst accusations of paternalism:
Gerard Prunier, the French analyst of Rwanda, once claimed: "France has seen
itself as a large hen followed by a docile brood of little black chicks." While
Francophone Africa was important to the French quest for international stature
during the post-war years, the rest of the continent's loyalty wavered between
the Soviet Union and the US, with the UK trailing well behind, despite the
Anglophile tendencies of many African elites, and schoolchildren, examined by
Cambridge and Oxford boards.

For British governments, Africa was a source of
"trouble" and not of "opportunity", says Professor Christopher Clapham, of the
Centre for African Studies at Cambridge University. Britain has maintained only
a minor military presence on the continent. It contributes between 0.2% and 0.4%
of its GDP to aid. It takes in refugees from wars and civil unrest. It supports
African scholars in British universities and sends teachers abroad to share
their skills. On that continent, the VSO and British Council go about their
business without much fanfare.

This may have changed. For the first time,
Africa is on the British political agenda. Since getting elected in 1997, the
Blair government has toyed with Africa as a theme, most visibly in creating the
role of the Department for International Development. But promises of debt
relief and increased aid are balanced by cuts to the number of Africa-watchers
within the FCO and the closure of embassies in Africa.

The post-9/11 security agenda also envelops
Africa in a further set of concerns. Intelligence agencies say Africa combines a
highly combustible mixture of poverty and Islam. They fear it will become a
recruiting ground for terrorists, provide networks for money-laundering and be
the site of further al Qaeda attacks, such as the 1998 US Embassy bombings in
Kenya and Tanzania. But the security risk is over-emphasised, to the detriment
of African economies reliant on tourism. At the same time, western oil companies
are investing in Africa's oil reserves, to balance those of the Middle East.
Africa's political and economic importance, declining after the Cold War, is
perversely reinforced by the new war on terror.

While policy-makers sometimes seem
over-sensitive about the colonial past, the public dismiss it as ancient
history. Thanks to school curriculums that rarely engage with Africa, many are
ignorant of its impact, even where it took place. How many Britons realise we
governed the former Italian colony of Eritrea for 10 years before handing it
over to the Ethiopians and setting the stage for 30 years of bitter warfare? Or
that the spread of Aids in Africa is linked to economic change and forced labour
migration that split up families and generated new norms of sexual behaviour and
gender roles?

Zimbabwe typifies our discomfort with the legacy
of settler colonialism. Those who, like Peter Hain and Peter Tatchell, supported
Mugabe's forces against Ian Smith's rebel government, feel betrayed by the
current regime. Others, with family connections, memories of Victoria Falls or
investments, are simply outraged. Since 2000, the British government has cut
development aid, military training and imposed "smart" sanctions along with the
rest of the EU. But despite this megaphone diplomacy, conditions in Zimbabwe
have only worsened. The problem, however, is not that we condemn the actions of
the Zimbabwean state, but that we do not condemn the violence, corruption and
oppression of other states with the same intensity.

Let's be honest, Africa is also an opportunity
for government and industry. Africa is an avid consumer of British exports. Some
£1bn worth of arms, last year, for example. Somehow, since 1999, arms sales to
Africa have almost quadrupled and licences have been issued for the export of
military equipment to some of the poorest states, and most oppressive
governments, on the continent: Eritrea, Angola and Somalia.

Meanwhile, the NHS is propped up by thousands of
African doctors and nurses. The BBC claims that African teachers "rescued"
London schools from collapse. Despite having invested in years of education and
training, African states are now short of professional staff, with catastrophic
consequences for health services over-whelmed by poverty and
Aids.

Colonial economies were designed to contribute
to the metropolitan economy – and to a large extent they still do. But tariffs
on processed crops ensure that most exports are of raw, unprocessed goods and
European subsidies squeeze African farmers out of the market. When British
farmers complain about competing with mange-tout flown in from Kenya or Zambia,
they shouldn't think that "ordinary" Africans benefit from these
capital-intensive farms and their global networks. Development aid also supports
a substantial UK-based community of experts, consultants and volunteers. Their
interventions, however well-intentioned, are often unpredictable and too rarely
bring the promised results.

And what of the Africans among us? Britain is
happy to employ African nurses and doctors, and consume their fruits, vegetables
and wines, but the determination of asylum claims reveals a woeful lack of
knowledge of African states. Ignorance, intentional misreading of documents and
an unwillingness to believe African applicants dominate the process.

The UK's policies on returning failed
asylum-seekers to their homes, often still unstable and unsafe, were condemned
by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees this month. The British Red Cross says
there are at least 25,000 failed asylum-seekers who have evaded deportation,
living in destitute poverty on our streets. Poor Africans in Africa need our
help; Africans among us are still a problem.

The political need
to lower numbers of asylum-seekers and refugees wins out over concerns about
human rights abuses, the rule of law or the quality of life for Africans. Africa
remains a problem that can't be allowed to get in the way of political
realities.Dr Sara Rich Dorman is lecturer in African Politics at the
School of Social and Political Studies, Edinburgh
University.

Mugabe Forbids Food Growing In Backyards -
Millions Starving Jan Lamprecht - 6/23/2005 Just as Eddie
Cross of the opposition MDC predicted a short while back, Zimbabwe President
Robert Mugabe has wiped out homes, and even bulldozed grocery stores - in
mid-winter. Eddie Cross estimated two million Blacks will become homeless as
a result of the dictator's actions. The UN estimates that this campaign,
which has taken only 1 month, has already resulted in 1.5 million Blacks
losing their homes. As unbelievable as this may sound, at the time when
Zimbabwe needs to import 1.2 million tons of food to support its population,
Mugabe has banned people from growing food in their own yards in urban areas
to feed their own families. It appears to me that Mr. Mugabe wants to be in
complete control of the food supply so that he can starve people at
will.

The reasons given for his actions are absoluteely. The people
are struggling to get food and stand for hours on end in food queues. The
people are just trying to feed themselves in a country which has been on the
verge of famine for years, and millions would already starve to death were
it not for food from the UN or (secretly) from South Africa. They are, at
best, just managing to survive.

In my book, Government by
Deception, I wrote about the need for socialist governments to create a
dependency on politicians. They work hard, as they try to control the
populace, to find ways of making the people depend on them for everything,
including food.

So far, only the United States criticized Mugabe's
action. South Africa has not only kept quiet, but actually supported the
regime, both secretly and openly.

Where is the
world?

Mugabe has said he will allow a UN inspection. But the
Useless Nations - as the UN really should be called - will probably do
little or even nothing.

What is happening is despicable. South
Africa's Apartheid regime was never even 1/100th as evil as Mugabe's
dictatorship. What is happening there is unprecedented in southern African
history. And yet, the world has not seen the worst of Mugabe. If he is
backed into a corner, this man will not just make millions homeless -
he will kill millions.

He already wiped out 20,000 to 30,000 people
belonging to the minority Matabele tribe in 1985 when out entire villages
were destroyed. They were throwing Black people down wells. An old school
friend of mine (see TheBeardedMan Blog spot) was a Policeman in Zimbabwe and
had the opportunity to see some of the aftermath of Mugabe's mass murder in
the 1980's. Mugabe is capable of murdering not merely tens or hundreds of
thousands - he is a murderer on the scale of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin
and Pol Pot.

This is the work of a megalomaniac who is punishing
those who voted against him in past elections.

I find it
incomprehensible that no major country in the world will sponsor a war
against this complete maniac of a man. Not even Saddam Hussein has done
anything close to the evil that this man has gotten away with.

The
Black African states are refusing to deal with Robert Mugabe, and some even
admire him. They will never condemn him - even if he slaughters millions of
his own people.

And the British talk, but never act. The British
Bulldog is toothless.

Yet, the British were the ones who
strong-armed Zimbabwe's first democratically elected, pro-Western Black
Prime Minister, Bishop Abel Muzorewa into handing over to this
Chinese-sponsored Communist cretin - Mugabe - who used intimidation to win
his first election back in 1980. He has cheated in several elections ever
since. He clothes himself in a weak charade of so-called "democracy" - but
he is, and has almost always been, an outright Dictator.

So
where are the British now to take responsibility for this maniac whom they
helped to get in power? I haven't seen bombers flying over Zimbabwe, Naval
forces in the Mozambique channel or the SAS sneaking into southern Africa,
as happened during the era of Ian Smith's rule.

The British had a
lot to say at the time, but where are they now? In the 1960's, when Rhodesia
issued the Universal Declaration of Independence, the British sent the Royal
Navy to hunt down tankers bringing oil to Rhodesia. The UN declared Rhodesia
a "threat to world peace" and the whole world immediately declared
"comprehensive sanctions" on 250,000 of White people, who were trying to
stand in the gap, trying to prevent absolute vicious dictators like Mugabe
from bringing that country down to where it is now. White people were
allegedly the vicious criminals which the world could not wait to kick
down.

But no destruction ever took place in Rhodesia. Rhodesia grew
amazingly fast, despite total and complete world sanctions. Rhodesians,
White and Black, never went hungry despite comprehensive world sanctions.
Rhodesia had to export its beef and other products illegally, but both
Blacks and Whites had food. They had more work too. Things were so much
better back then - but everyone attack the government of Ian Smith. And now?
Mugabe is laying waste to the country and has been bringing complete ruin to
it for the past 5 years. Yet, the world is silent.

Sanctions
were employed only against White people in Rhodesia and South Africa - but
when a Black Megalomaniac Dictator commits crimes ten thousand times worse
than any White regime ever did, we hear only silence. Politically Correct
hypocrites only see evil among Whites, but a Black man can do anything he
wants, even to other Blacks. There is no evil too great - as long as you are
Black.

Jan Lamprecht was born and raised in Zimbabwe, then called
Rhodesia, during the "Bush War", which resulted in Robert Mugabe coming to
power. He was educated in Harare, the capital of the country, before leaving
for South Africa, where he spent some time in the Navy. He wrote a book
called "Government by Deception" about African politics related to Zimbabwe
and the effects Mugabe's policies may have on other countries.

Zimbabwe: Unprecendented call for UN and AU action
over evictions by 200 rights groupsAs the human rights situation in
Zimbabwe steadily deteriorates, with more than 300,000 now evicted from
their homes by the government and a UN Special Envoy appointed to
investigate the destruction and evictions, a coalition of more than 200
African and international NGOs today issued an unprecedented Joint Appeal to
the United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU) to help the people of
Zimbabwe.

Strongly condemning the mass forced evictions, the coalition of
organizations urged Nigerian President Obasanjo, as Chair of the AU, to put
the crisis in Zimbabwe on the agenda of the upcoming AU Assembly --
scheduled to take place in Libya on 4 - 5 July.

The coalition also
called on relevant bodies at the UN, including the Secretary-General, to
publicly condemn the ongoing mass violations and take effective action to
stop them.

"The appointment of a UN Special Envoy to investigate the mass
violations taking place in Zimbabwe is welcome," said a representative of
the coalition. "But effective action must also be taken immediately to help
those already sleeping on the streets, beside the rubble of their homes --
and to ensure that the evictions and demolitions stop
immediately."

"The AU and UN simply cannot ignore such an unprecedented,
wide-ranging appeal on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe, particularly from
African civil society," said a coalition representative. "African solidarity
should be with the people of Africa -- not their repressive
leaders."

Amongst the human rights and civic groups signing the Joint
Appeal are Zimbabwean Lawyers for Human Rights, the Inter Africa Network for
Human Rights (AFRONET), Amnesty International, the Centre on Housing Rights
and Evictions (COHRE), the International Bar Association's Human Rights
Institute, and the International Crisis Group.

For interview
requests, please ring the following local coalition contact
numbers:

Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff is defending the
Government's stance on New Zealand Cricket's (NZC) decision to go ahead with
a tour of Zimbabwe.

The Government had no legal means and would not
try to exercise any means through the law to physically prevent New
Zealanders from leaving this country, he said today.

"That is a
fundamental right of all New Zealanders. We're not about to abrogate that,"
Mr Goff told National Radio.

"We're not in a position to stop the team
going at all."

Nevertheless, the Government would prefer the tour not
take place "because of the appalling things that the (President Robert)
Mugabe regime is doing to its own people".

NZC yesterday said players
had unanimously agreed to embark on the five-week tour to Zimbabwe in August
after an independent security report gave the all clear.

NZC chief
executive Martin Snedden said the team would be liable for a fine of more
than $US2 million ($NZ2.82 million) for unjustified cancellation under
International Cricket Council (ICC) regulations.

Mr Goff said Green Party
co-leader Rod Donald had suggested to him that the Government could pay the
$2.8 million fine."I don't think New Zealand taxpayers would appreciate $2.8
million being paid to the International Cricket Council when there are other
pressing needs," he said.

Mr Donald had also said the Government
could stop the team going.

"Well you can't stop them going. Only a
dictatorial, autocratic regime can stop New Zealanders from leaving their
own country," Mr Goff said.

"That's exactly what we're protesting about
in terms of what Mugabe is doing."

Mr Goff said he did not think this
country had any problems with its image abroad in relation to
Zimbabwe.

"We have, more consistently, I think, than any other country,
perhaps with the exception of the United Kingdom, totally condemned the
Zimbabwe regime. We have sanctions against Mugabe and his henchmen, I guess
symbolic, they're not about to come to New Zealand, they wouldn't be welcome
here. They can't come here."

He had done what he could with
NZC.

"I've written to Martin Snedden. I've pointed out the human rights
abuses that concern the Government and New Zealanders. I've pointed out what
has happened in the past. For example, last year the English cricket team
took steps to ensure that they would not be required to shake hands or meet
with Robert Mugabe," he said.

"I've indicated how they did that and
suggested to New Zealand Cricket that they do the same. They've apparently
picked up that suggestion."

Asked what he would do if he were New Zealand
cricket captain Stephen Fleming, he said that if he did not have contractual
obligations, he would opt out of touring Zimbabwe.

New Zealand
Cricket Players' Association executive director Heath Mills said the players
were "very sympathetic" to the situation in Zimbabwe.

"Like all New
Zealanders they are concerned with what they see going on there, the
pictures that we see on the news etc," he said.

"However, I think the
players recognise that they are part of an international cricketing
community and that if we wish to remain so we have obligations to fulfil,
and one of those is touring Zimbabwe."

Players had not been asked
directly whether they would prefer not to go if it were not for the
international obligations.

NZC was contracted to the ICC and the players
were contracted to NZC.

"When they sign those contracts they have
obligations to fulfil in terms of a touring programme for the next 12 months
and they are cricketers, that's how they earn their money, so they will be
going on this tour," Mr Mills said.

He confirmed the Government had
said it would prefer players in the team to not have any contact with Mr
Mugabe or his representatives.

"The players are keen, they respect that,"
he said.

Other touring in recent years had ensured they did not meet with
any political representatives while on tour and NZC had given players that
assurance.